Why not follow Singapore and have both? Any greenery you cut down to build something must be replaced, and in Singapore that happens to be replaced by becoming part of the building itself. It's a very unique, and IMO, cool look when the skyscrapers have an open garden halfway through, or gardens on top with greenery down the sides.

Singapore does have a climate where without those trees it would be crazy hot walking. It was ~36C in October when I was there in October.

I sweated through my shirts immediately going outside. But my home state in the winter ranges between 0C and 15C in October.

NYC would be so amazing with greenery integrated into the cityscape more

I hope this will happen soon. NYC passed a green roof law in Nov. 2019 that requires all new or extensively renovated buildings to install gardens, urban agriculture, or solar on their roofs.

https://www.citylandnyc.org/29502-2/

Loads of SF streets are hyper industrial and have no trees. It's strange what an effect it has. Walking through SOMA feels weirdly like being in a concrete video game. Walking through my neighbourhood in Glen Park is lovely and charming.

I work near the new building at 1550 mission and they've put trees down in front of that building and the street is instantly nicer.

Any city really. Imagine gardens at rooftops and some window vegetable gardens being more common place or balcony gardens.

Policies like that are well intentioned but in many places there can be a pattern of knocking it all down & rebuilding every 30-50 years. In other words, just as the trees start to get large, you cut them all down once more.

I am for a situation where we constantly plant new trees and 30 years later knock them down and plant new ones. Correct me if I am wrong, but younger trees grow faster and sequester more carbon.

Secondly, this attitude about not cutting trees is causing many trees from not getting planted. Because there are utilities that lie underneath and if they need to be repaired 15 years later, trees are in the way.

In the story it mentions that. Older trees are better then younger trees.

> Instead of cutting down trees and putting up buildings, how about cutting down buildings and putting up trees?

Yes, please. Living in NYC I have seen so many trees disappear. Every single remodel or development cuts down every green thing and paves over anything which can spawn life. It makes the neighborhood look bare revealing all the dirt and grime.

By the way, in Johannesburg this is not the case.

The natural vegetation in many parts of the highveld here naturally had almost no trees. (Pretoria does have a lot of trees naturally.)

Berlin is the only city in the world with more trees today than Johannesburg.

Berlin has 431k street trees. Toronto has 11 million trees (including presumably ravines and natural areas) - and I'm sure other cities have similar amounts. Why do you think Berlin has the most trees?

Not the OP and not doubting your numbers but to me that was also surprising. When I remember Berlin I think of streets like this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/5e/70/7e5e7045c4443f645731...

when I think of Toronto I think more of this:

https://imgur.com/xB702UU

In German cities in my experience treets often seem more imposing or covering more space, maybe that's the difference as North American streets are much wider.

I think I may be wrong about Berlin. Googling around it does seem like Toronto and Johannesburg are close together (both around 10 million trees), but are the trees in Toronto planted or natural? In JHB most of the trees were planted.